History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c14.28

c14.28

But Harṣa was not a mere detached patron of letters. He himself appears to have wielded the pen with no less dexterity and effect than the sword. There are three plays, viz., the *Ratnāvalī*, the *Priyadarśikā*, and the *Nāgānanda*, which are said to have been composed by a king named Harṣadeva. This royal author has been identified with Harṣa of Kanauj, since it is contended that no other sovereign of this name can meet the requirements of the case. Now, ancient Indian history knows of three kings, besides Śīlāditya of Kanauj, who bore the name Harṣa: (*a*) the tyrannical king of Kashmir, who flourished between 1089-1101 A. D., according to the *Rājatarangiṇī*.² (*b*) Harṣa, the grandfather of king Bhoja of Dhārā, (*circa* 947-972 A. D.). (*c*) Harṣa-Vikramāditya of Ujjain³, identified with Yaśodharman of Malwa by Dr. Hoernle⁴. Of these, the first two can easily be ruled out owing to chronological difficulties presented by these works being mentioned and quoted by earlier writers. Dāmodaragupta, who lived under Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir (779-810 A. D.) mentions in his work, the *Kuṭṭanīmata* (vv. 856f), the story and performance of the *Ratnāvalī*, which he ascribes to a king. Dr. Keith further points out that the poet Māgha, who may be assigned... to about A. D. 700, knew the *Nāgānanda*, "to which a reference is made in his Kāvya (xx, 44)."⁵ Regarding the claims of the third Harṣa mentioned above, we may say that according to Kalhaṇa, Harṣa was only his secondary name, and Vikramāditya was his title. It appears, therefore, improbable that if this Harṣa had been the author of these plays, he would have omitted to mention the prized title of Vikramāditya in the *prastāvanā*. Besides, he was not a Buddhist, and so he could not be associated with an almost Buddhistic play as the *Nāgānanda*. Thus applying the method of elimination, the only Harṣa left to hold the field is the Kanauj sovereign of that name.¹ Moreover, it is thought that the internal evidence of these plays also supports Harṣa’s claims to their authorship. In the first place, they appear to bear the stamp of a common authorship, as they not only exhibit innumerable parallelisms of thought, style, structure, and diction, but sometimes contain even identical phrases and stanzas.² All the three dramas, again, are considered to betray here and there some of the actual incidents in the life of Harṣa, as also his ideals and achievements.³ We must, however, urge caution against any undue reliance on conclusions based on such arguments only. That they are the work of one pen may probably be conceded by all critics; but it may as well be said—and such a charge has undoubtedly been made, as we shall presently see—that they were the productions of some literary protégé of Harṣa, who was thoroughly conversant with the religious tendencies and the chief events in his patron’s life and career. Perhaps they were written to provide entertainment for the Kanauj audience and for dedication to the king, but the poet in his gratitude for the munificent gifts received and to honour Harṣa, who appears to have been singularly ambitious, went a step further and ascribed the composition of the plays themselves to him.